How does one know in advance what it is proposed to do? How does one know after the event what has been done - is there a proper log? I can see no indication that either is possible, and without that crucial information it is simply not feasible to determine whether "undesirable" changes have occurred in a short time - the registry is being affected, and other serious changes are possible.

Commonsense says that every proposed change is notified in detail in advance, with the option to accept it or not, and to set "ignore" flags as appropriate.

I also did the search, and found nothing to answer my queries, hence the posting.

In the one link you give it says "does a good job at hiding all the complexities" - which is precisely my point. How do I see the essential information before and after the event? I will not use any automated system that does not provide full info and options.

I also did the search, and found nothing to answer my queries, hence the posting.

In the one link you give it says "does a good job at hiding all the complexities" - which is precisely my point. How do I see the essential information before and after the event? I will not use any automated system that does not provide full info and options.

Thanks,

BWD

This isn't designed for the Geek but for the novice who needs help and a simple tool to tune up his computer.

It would be far more sensible even in that case - which is not explained - to educate and train, not simply assume that the confusion that results from unexpected, not understood, and thus insoluble problems, faults and uncontrolled behaviour are to be tolerated as the price of acting as nanny. Not sensible.

But, you confirm that I need to uninstall this item, and to recommend that it never be used as it is quite unserviceable.

I agree with this BWD guy. It sounds kind of ridiculous that they would keep us in the dark about what it's actually doing when you use it. Maybe that's fine for people who are computer illiterate, but I wouldn't want avatar!/GrimeFighter to be deleting things without me knowing about it. I mean, that's the kinda claim a fake anti-virus would make - that they will "clean up and speed up your PC no problem", then who knows what changes they'll actually make. It seems like it's setting computer illiterate people up to be more vulnerable to fraud.

I like avast! and recommend it to everyone, but I don't like being told to update my (non-avast!) software when I am content with it as it is, or having things going on behind my back.

You miss the point, evangelist. Danno has it right: "the kinda claim a fake anti-virus would make - that they will "clean up and speed up your PC no problem"".Of course we can uninstall and not use. But even the novice should be told what is being done. This is not behaviour designed to inspire confidence and it reduces my likelihood of recommending Avast! because the attitude reflects policy (I see signs of this elsewhere). It is simply unacceptable to make a Registry change without logging the detail, never mind anything else. This is arrogance, belittles users, and shows no respect. The designers may think they are being helpful, but the converse is true. Or is it just lazy programming? Either way, transparency, honesty, complete detail, selectable, individually reversible changes plus reasons for the proposed change are the minimum I would expect for such a system. Seriously, they would gain greatly if they adopted this approach.

You miss the point, evangelist. Danno has it right: "the kinda claim a fake anti-virus would make - that they will "clean up and speed up your PC no problem"".Of course we can uninstall and not use. But even the novice should be told what is being done. This is not behaviour designed to inspire confidence and it reduces my likelihood of recommending Avast! because the attitude reflects policy (I see signs of this elsewhere). It is simply unacceptable to make a Registry change without logging the detail, never mind anything else. This is arrogance, belittles users, and shows no respect. The designers may think they are being helpful, but the converse is true. Or is it just lazy programming? Either way, transparency, honesty, complete detail, selectable, individually reversible changes plus reasons for the proposed change are the minimum I would expect for such a system. Seriously, they would gain greatly if they adopted this approach.

Actually, you need to buy before you can use. It is not a free product.You also need to get in the habit of using the custom install and stop using default install.That practice holds true no matter who's or what program you install.

Why do you persist? You still miss the point. But who would pay for this? (But why would I get a free go, then?) Default or not (and grant me some intelligence and discriminatory power), as I pointed out, if one tries it, on the basis described, uninstallation is the only sensible option. The company do themselves no favours.

That's the problem with evangelism, no argument or evidence is tolerable.

So you have to purchase Grime Fighter? I'm not clear about whether it comes with certain versions of Avast!

My main concern with it would be whether I could approve each thing it did. I don't want something with just an idiot button, then it goes and does its thing, and I find out later that it deleted something I wanted to keep, just because I hadn't used it in a year.

Incidentally, I did not pay for Grime Fighter (and have no intention of ever doing that), I did not get the option to install or not - it just appeared on an update. I cannot find any way to disable it let alone uninstall it. I checked "licensing information" to find that there are no licences associated with my account! This is, at best, puzzling.

So, it was unasked for; on startup I am getting (what are meant to be) worrying messages about "Grime" and "bloatware" (even though none are reported! - work that out) as well as other claims about speed, but with no further information or options - no settings of any kind. So, dear Mr Uber-evangelist, how does this square with your statements "Actually, you need to buy before you can use. It is not a free product. You also need to get in the habit of using the custom install and stop using default install." ?You also make there an unwarranted assumption: my lifetime habit is of *not* using 'default install' - whenever I get the option.

This is, to coin a phrase, scaremongering foistware of the worst kind, as Danno said. We are in no position to judge whether it is worth giving it the time of day let alone whether it is effective as claimed.